Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > > > > But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them,
> > > > > you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't
> > > > > be dropped.
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > That's an extremely foggy distinction.
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Not at all.
> > > You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does
> > > not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free.
> > Which isn't what you said. You said "you haven't been trying to
> > prove anything to them".
> > > You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as
> > > a result of removing non-free.
> > > These two things are in direct conflict.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were
> trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions,
> to word games).
I never claimed I was trying to give examples OF how some people have
inconsistent opinions. I claimed that giving examples TO people who
have inconsistent opinions was the only way I knew of for dealing with
> > You jumped from a claim about me not trying to "prove anything" to
> False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise]
You might also have made other claims, but that claim is clearly
illustrated in the first quoted paragraph at the top of this message.
> > > > So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph
> > > > about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough
> > > > specifics to be refutable if it were false?
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand how you could possibly think that.
> > >
> > > Because it provides no rationale. Duh.
> > I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation
> > does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines.
> More nonsensical handwaving.
> This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is
> removed. Handwaving is not rationale.
I agree that "GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian
free software guidelines" is independent of whether or not non-free
However, it's pretty blatent that if non-free is not removed then
"doesn't satisfy DFSG" could go in non-free, and if is removed then
"doesn't satisfy DFSG" should also be removed.
Are you suggesting that we will continue to distribute non-DFSG works
after your proposal, and that the only change is that we won't distribute
them in non-free (and the package maintainers will put some other tag
on them, besides "non-free")?
Yeah, if you consider that to be the obvious outcome, then I can see
how you'd consider my statements to be nonsense.